Commentary: "Innovation Outpaces Regulation"

The past decade or so has seen an incredible infusion of
innovative technologies into the vertical flight industry, but regulatory
guidance has not kept pace. Between tiltrotors, iPads, drones, innovative new
approaches to vertical flight, and conventional helicopter enhancements, regulatory
agencies such as the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) have not developed timely, consistent guidance
that can facilitate the safe implementation of new technologies for vertical
flight in today’s demanding marketplace.

Technology
Innovations Need Regulatory Innovations

Bell Helicopter CEO John Garrison recently discussed the
subject of regulations at a luncheon hosted by the Aero Club of Washington,
stating that while bringing technology to market is a challenge,
“The FAA and industry, along with other global regulatory bodies, are
struggling to fit new technology into a regulatory structure that in many cases
was written when the technology wasn’t even envisioned.”

Industry has shown that they can be nimbler and more responsive to
customer needs: “The reality is we simply cannot allow it to take three or more
years to integrate technology into our products – we need to move at the speed
of modern business – at the speed of our customers.” But in spite of these
improvements in design and development, “it can be fairly frustrating to us and
our customers to create a modern environment where a team can put an aircraft
together in 18 months, or adapt the latest technology to an existing platform,
and then spend nearly the same amount of time working to achieve
certification.”

Unfortunately,
regulatory approval of common-sense improvements are often subject to
bureaucratic delays, with significant impacts on the safety, sales, operations,
business growth and economic vitality of vertical flight. Rotorcraft
manufacturers and operators are increasingly impacted by what are often
protracted back-and-forths with regulators. This results in unnecessary cost to
both government and industry and is an impediment to safety improvements.

Two FAA reports to Congress in 2012-2013 outlined many of
the issues with the agency’s aircraft
certification process and consistency of regulatory interpretations. Inconsistent
guidance and its interpretation across time and distance has been a major
issue: different FAA regions and even different personnel within regions
interpret regulations in vastly different ways, often having significant cost
and time impacts to rotorcraft businesses. The result is a patchwork
regulatory environment, with compliance based on non-standard local
interpretation.

Sometimes, well-intentioned improvements go awry and fail to
realize the intended benefits. The streamlined approach that the FAA adopted
last year for approval of non-required safety-enhancing equipment (NORSEE) was
intended to provide an efficient path to introduce some types of safety
improving technologies (building on the approval of iPads). However, the implementation
process has become neither efficient nor effective. Similarly, the FAA created
the Designated Engineering Representative (DER) role and other industry
designees for the agency to delegate responsibilities, allowing FAA personnel to
focus on safety-critical activities. Unfortunately, the delegation is not being
fully utilized, sometimes with unnecessary duplication and second-guessing. The FAA could realize significant cost savings by actually delegating
the authority set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Multiplying the inconsistencies across the FAA regions in
the US (the world’s largest helicopter market) are discontinuities between the world’s
other major regulatory bodies. Despite harmonization efforts with EASA,
Transport Canada and other agencies – in addition to the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) – national differences cause divergences that cost
time and money for the regulators, manufactures and operators. An oft-cited
example is the recent case of EASA approval for the Robinson R66 Turbine. EASA
took four years longer than the FAA to issue its type certificate, during which
time more than 50 other countries certified the R66 and 500 aircraft were
delivered, accumulating an estimated fleet total of 160,000 hours. EASA also
levied more than $1M in fees on Robinson, compared to $80,500 in Canada and no
charge in the US. Clearly more harmonization is required.

Transformative Technologies

Helicopters, of course, must be certified in the country in
which they operate. ICAO standards and work towards harmonization of the FAA,
EASA, Transport Canada and other regulatory bodies have made great progress
over the years, but there is still a long way to go. An exemption for the Bell
429 over the 7,000 lb (3,175 kg) Part 27 limit by Transport Canada, for
example, has led to 16 other countries following suit – but not the FAA or EASA.
This discontinuity has created some issues that should be addressed in a
holistic approach.

The FAA, working with industry and the General Aviation Manufacturers
Association (GAMA), has begun making strides towards a “clean sheet” regulatory approach to
Part 23, which regulates small aircraft, simplifying the underlying regulation
and development of standards. A fresh approach to Parts 27 and 29, which
regulate rotorcraft certification, is now also warranted. AHS and the rotorcraft
industry applaud the FAA’s efforts to advance the dialogue on this important
topic.

New concepts for manned VTOL aircraft that are radically
different than conventional fixed- or rotary-wing aircraft, however, are now
taking shape. Transformative vertical flight concepts using novel propulsion
and energy architectures – such as distributive electric propulsion, embedded
fans and other innovative approaches – are on the cusp of technical viability
but cannot be certificated within any existing regulatory guidance and must
also be addressed.

Meanwhile, there is an explosion in the use of unmanned
vertical take-off and landing aircraft – from sophisticated toys to converted
manned helicopters. The FAA is perhaps a decade behind in developing
regulations that would allow hobbyists and commercial entities – for such
applications as filmmaking, agriculture and powerline inspection – to fly small
UAS without being a threat to manned aircraft. The FAA is slated to release its
long-delayed draft rules in November for small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS),
but the final regulation may not be issued until 2016; standards for larger UAS
are even farther away. Transport Canada, in comparison, is now issuing
1,000 Special Flight Operations Certificates (SFOCs) per year for commercial
UAS flights.

The FAA has made some significant advances in understanding
how UAS can operate in the National Airspace System. Six sites in the US – Alaska,
North Dakota, Nevada, New York, Texas and Virginia – have been designated as national
UAS test sites, with all but the last having already received a certificate of
authorization (COA) to begin small UAS operations.

But the reality is that drone use is going to continue to
expand, with or without the proper regulations to require their safe use.
Already numerous near-misses or worse have happened with airborne helicopters –
and even airliners – by an oblivious public. Just as it’s ingrained in society
not to play ball in traffic, so too must the public understand that they cannot
fly their UAS where there may be air traffic until there are established, safety-based
rules and procedures. Strict, enforceable rules that allow the sensible
operations of drones are urgently needed.

Collaborating for
Modernization

Technology is maturing much faster than current regulations can
adapt. As John Garrison noted in his talk, “The modernization of our
regulatory structure will be a key factor in the industry’s success – but more
importantly, the success of our customers.” It takes great engineering and
technical analysis to improve performance and safety, but it also takes a
regulatory environment that rewards innovation and adapts quickly to change.
This kind of change in our regulations would foster an industry environment
where operators can quickly adopt the most innovative technology to enhance the
safety of their missions. Government regulators must work collaboratively with
industry to help the regulatory environment keep pace with innovation – allowing
vertical flight to reach its full potential, while ensuring safe skies around
the world.

Forecast International estimates $100B in global civil
rotorcraft production over the next decade. All of the world’s helicopter
manufacturers are international in nature, with a global supply chain, a global
customer base and, often, international partners in development and production.

AHS International promotes vertical flight and its application
around the world. Government agencies need to redouble their efforts towards
harmonization and consistency both within their jurisdictions and with other
regulatory bodies. Those governments who have more straightforward and
transparent regulations that can facilitate advances in technology in a timely
manner will have an economic edge in the fiercely competitive global
marketplace.